A dying declaration holds significant evidentiary value and can sustain a conviction if it is consistent, medically verified, and inspires judicial confidence, establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially when corroborated by circumstantial and medical evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294(b) and 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 161 and 374(2) - Dying declaration - Evidentiary value - Court held that a dying declaration is a significant piece of evidence, which, if inspiring confidence, is sufficient to convict an accused, even in the absence of eyewitnesses - The reliability of a dying declaration, if corroborated by medical evidence and consistent with other circumstantial testimonies, remains paramount in determining the guilt of the accused. (Paras 19, 21)

(B) Appellate Scope - An appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court if the prosecution has sufficiently established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through cogent and corroborated evidence, and if the lower court's judgment is based on an appreciation of the entire factual matrix. (Paras 8, 21)

Facts of the case:
The appellant/accused was convicted for murder and obscene acts. The victim, who was the spouse of the accused, alleged that the accused arrived home intoxicated, engaged in a quarrel, and subsequently poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. The victim later succumbed to burn injuries. The trial court, relying on the dying declaration, medical evidence, and testimonies of neighbors, held the accused guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The present appeal challenges this conviction on grounds of procedural irregularities and lack of eyewitness evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the victim's dying declaration, recorded by a judicial authority, was consistent, conscious, and oriented. Medical records corroborate the injuries and the cause of death. Neighbors' testimonies support the prosecution's narrative of the incident, confirming the victim's statement. The court concluded that there was clear intention and knowledge of the accused that the act would cause death.

Issues: Whether the conviction of the accused for murder was justified based on the evidence presented, and whether the dying declaration was sufficient to sustain a conviction despite the absence of independent eyewitnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: A dying declaration, when consistent and medically corroborated, serves as a strong piece of evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction, even in the absence of direct eyewitnesses, provided it inspires the court's confidence and establishes the nexus between the accused's actions and the victim's death.

Result: Criminal appeal dismissed, judgment of the lower court confirmed.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.POORNIMA, J.)

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/sole accused in the judgment 07.07.2022 passed in S.C.No.516 of 2016 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai, in which judgment, Accused had been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 294(b) IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) in default to undergo one years simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :

(a) The complaint was given by the deceased, Meena Ponnu, who was the wife of the accused and the victim . P.W.18, Thiru. Arjunan, Sub-Inspector of Police, on receiving hospital intimation on 10.05.2016 at about 9.30 p.m., proceeded to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, where he recorded the statement of the deceased.

(b) In her statement, the deceased stated that her marriage with the accused had taken place about five years prior, and they were blessed with one daughter and one son. The accused was in the habit of consuming alcohol and frequently quarrelling with her. On 10.05.2016 at about 3.00 p.m., the accused came home in an inebriated condition. Since their son was suffering from chickenpox, she questioned him as to why he had come home intoxicated when their child was ill. This led to a quarrel, after which the accused left the house.

(c) Later, at about 7.00 p.m., the accused returned home and told her that there was no use for her to live. He then poured kerosene on her. Believing that he would not actually set her on fire, she remained there; however, the accused set her ablaze. She caught fire and raised alarm, upon which the neighbours came, poured water, and extinguished the flames. She sustained burn injuries from the hip up to the upper portion of her body, and her child also sustained minor burn injuries. Thereafter, her father took her in an auto-rickshaw to the hospital, where she was admitted for treatment.

(d) Based on the statement of the deceased (Ex.P12), P.W.18 registered a First Information Report (Ex.P13) in Crime No.141 of 2016 at Oomatchikulam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC. P.W.18 further deposed that at the time of recording the statement, the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give the statement. He forwarded the original FIR and complaint to the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, and copies to the concerned officials.

(e) Subsequently, the investigation was taken over by Inspector of Police Thiru.Dhinakaran, who later passed away due to ill-health. P.W.18 deposed based on the case records that the Inspector visited the place of occurrence on 11.05.2016 at about 00.15 hours, prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P1) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P2). He later altered the section of law to Section 302 IPC and prepared the Alteration Report (Ex.P14).

(f) The accused was arrested on 11.05.2016 at about 4.00 p.m., and his confession statement (Ex.P15) was recorded, pursuant to which lungi and shirt were recovered. The material objects were sent to the Court under Form 95 (Ex.P16) and a requisition was sent for forensic examination (Ex.P17). The accused was thereafter remanded to judicial custody.

(g) On 11.05.2016 at about 1.00 p.m., the Investigating Officer conducted inquest in the presence of witnesses and panchayathars and prepared the Inquest Report (Ex.P18). During investigation, kerosene cane, cane lid, burnt nighty and match box were recovered under Recovery Mahazar (Ex.P4). All material objects were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the Forensic Report was marked as Ex.P20.

(h) Further, Dr.Mohamed Nasim (P.W.13) conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased and i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document